Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01365

#1

Feb 19, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (28 USC 2241), Receipt No. ACACDC-41548568 for $5 filing fee, filed by Petitioner Victor Manuel Perez Barrios. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Case Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits) (Attorney Alfonso Morales added to party Victor Manuel Perez Barrios(pty:bkmov))(Morales, Alfonso) [Transferred from California Central on 3/4/2026.] (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#2

Feb 20, 2026

NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. Case is transferred to the Western Division. Case has been assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi for all further proceedings. Any matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to Sheri Pym. New Case Number 2:26-cv-01825-MCS (SP). (et) [Transferred from California Central on 3/4/2026.] (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#3

Feb 20, 2026

NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, who is authorized to consider preliminary matters and conduct all further hearings as may be appropriate or necessary. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.4, the Court must be notified within five (5) days of any address change. See notice for additional details. (et) [Transferred from California Central on 3/4/2026.] (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#4

Feb 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: HABEAS JURISDICTION by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. Petitioner is ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed or transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Petitioner shall respond in writing within seven days. (lom) [Transferred from California Central on 3/4/2026.] (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#5

Feb 26, 2026

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, 4 filed by Petitioner Victor Manuel Perez Barrios. (Morales, Alfonso) [Transferred from California Central on 3/4/2026.] (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#6

Feb 27, 2026

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE (JS6) by Judge Mark C. Scarsi:, ORDER by Judge Mark C. Scarsi transferring case to Southern District of California. Accordingly, the Court orders the transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Cour t directs the Clerk to effect the transfer immediately and close the case in this District. Original file, certified copy of the transfer order and docket sheet sent. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (sh) [Transferred from California Central on 3/4/2026.] (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#7

Mar 03, 2026

Case transferred in from the Central District of California; Case Number 2:26-cv-01825-MCS-SP. Original file received electronically. (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#8

Mar 03, 2026

Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major assigned to transfer case from Central District of California. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no document attached) (ggv) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#9

Mar 04, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 19, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to serve Respondents with the habeas petition [Dkt. 1] by 5:00 PM on March 9, 2026, and file proof of service. Petitioner must also serve the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California by a method prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(A) by that date and file proof of service.The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 5:00 PM on March 19, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file, as exhibits to their response, the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary for adjudication of this habeas petition, including all Department of Homeland Security records, immigration court documents, arrest or custody records, and any other materials pertaining to Petitioner's detention, processing, or removal proceedings. Unless Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to the complete relief requested in the habeas petition, Respondents must comply with this order by filing the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records.The Court SETS a hearing with oral argument for March 26, 2026 at 9:30 AM. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing. The hearing will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. The parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM on the day before the hearing to determine whether such an order has issued and the hearing has been vacated.The Court ORDERS that Petitioner shall not be transferred out of this District unless Respondents provide advance notice of the intended move. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket in this proceeding and shall state the reason why Respondents believe that such a movement is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been docketed, Petitioner SHALL NOT be moved out of this District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of that docketing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/04/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#10

Mar 04, 2026

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Victor Manuel Perez Barrios. Amendment to 9 Minute Order (No Time),,,,,,,,,, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Morales, Alfonso) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

Electronic Transfer In

Mar 04, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#11

Mar 18, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#12

Mar 19, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#13

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Victor Manuel Perez Barrios filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 10. 1. Petitioner entered the United States illegally and has continuously resided in the country since 1995. Id. ¶ 5. After his arrival, he was arrested by ICE, placed in removal proceedings, and released on bond. See Dkt. 10-1 at 2. On December 14, 2023, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed, and Petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which remains pending. See id. On or about September 17, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE officers in unmarked vehicles who surrounded him as he was walking home. Since that time, Petitioner has been detained without a bond hearing at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Dkt. 10 ¶ 27. 2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that (i) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. See Dkt. 10-1 at 2. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his prior release on bond without an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the public. Mathews v. Elridge, 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976) (due process analysis considers (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the [government] action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail."). Petitioner acquired a protectable liberty interest when the government previously granted his release pending removal proceedings. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (grant of parole carries an "implicit promise" that liberty will be revoked only for violation of release conditions). Although Petitioner appears to have prior arrests for license suspension and drug charges that he plans to contest, see Dkt. 10 ¶ 23-26; Dkt. 10-1 at 2, the government has offered no evidence that it detained him after considering those facts and making an individualized determination of his danger to the public or flight risk. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). Instead, Respondents afforded Petitioner no process before detaining him. The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his liberty interest, and the government has offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would outweigh this substantial liberty interest. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention and orders his immediate release.4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondent from redetaining Petitioner without first providing a bond hearing before an immigration judge to justify a deprivation of his liberty interest. See, e.g., Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025); Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2025); O.G. v. Albarran, No. 1:26-CV-00010-TLN-DMC, 2026 WL 19105, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2026). While § 1226 allows the government to hold a noncitizen in custody while it decides whether to initially grant release, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who already enjoy a liberty interest. In order to prevent an erroneous deprivation of that existing liberty interest and satisfy due process requirements, this hearing must take place prior to any detention. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779-80 (2008) (while habeas relief commonly includes release from physical imprisonment, "depending on the circumstances, more [relief] may be required"); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner's release---revocable at the government's discretion---did not provide complete relief where petitioner sought a legal ruling that he could only be redetained upon a bond hearing); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005) (despite release, petitioner's habeas claim challenging the statutory authority for his detention "continue[d] to present a live case or controversy" because the court could provide relief to prevent redetention on the same allegedly unlawful basis).The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 14. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/25/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#14

Mar 25, 2026

Order

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#15

Apr 02, 2026

Notice (Other)

May 01, 2026

Order of Judge Transfer